Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lighter tricks


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Delete. I'd be willing to userify the content upon request if someone wants to flesh it out more and make it into a proper article... &mdash; Scientizzle 15:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Lighter tricks

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Thinly disguised advert for Lightertricks.com (confirmed by the first edit to the article). As an article about a website, it fails WP:WEB. If the advertizing was removed, it would be original research about lighter tricks. Masaruemoto 01:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC) It was never my intention to advertise the lightertricks website but to inform people of what lightertricks themselves are. The art of performing lightertricks is deeply rooted in the lightertricks website, and seeing as the website played/plays a major role I thought it deserved recognition. I don't want to be violating any wikipedia regulations so I would appreciate suggestions (I am not a seasoned wiki editor) for fixing the article so it may remain online. Combat Fetus 21:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. WP is not an advertising service. meshach 02:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. OR and Advert ff m  13:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. (Duane543 16:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC))
 * Strong Delete, WP is not for advertising. GlassCobra 19:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Weak keep Article seems to have been improved significantly. GlassCobra 21:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep/Comment Is it not the point of wikipedia to help others learn? The article is informative and the only reference related to lighter tricks on the web besides that of the lightertricks website. If there were more websites related to the interest then it would no doubt be a broader page, but seeing as there is not it seems fitting for those interested in the topic to learn about the one place that holds the information they seek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.152.108.250 (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The only problem here is that we are not about everything that can be found. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 20:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Interesting and pretty, but not a notable site necessarily.  A little coatrackish - the article purports to be about the hobby of performing tricks with a Zippo lighter, but is thinly disguised spam for the site in question.  If the above anon poster can prove me wrong, I'll change my mind. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 20:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I have removed the information (advertising) regarding the lightertricks.com website except for the appropriate references. Also begun work on expanding the information available. Combat Fetus 23:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * CF, you might want to review our information on notability, and in this case a readthrough on WP:WEB would do well. These are in short what we're looking for. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 01:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dennis, I read through those pages and I must admit to finding them wordy and not fully understanding everything that was covered, but I do see your point of view. If I were to remove what is being considered advertising then the page would no doubt get to stay, correct? Does that mean that all mention of the lightertricks website should be removed or is it the wording that needs to be changed? There have been numerous newspaper articles about the past and present versions of the website, press releases, and outside parties reviewing the website (none of which have actually been included in the page) but I'm unsure whether they meet the credentials. Some further help would be appreciated. Combat Fetus 21:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, doesn't appear to meet notability of cultural topics. --Dhartung | Talk 23:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's interesting and has some sources. I don't think it's just an ad, there are quite a few other websites on this topic. futurebird 21:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and per WP:NOT. Oli Filth(talk) 21:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "How To" part of article has been removed. Combat Fetus 23:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.